THE STAIRCASE (2004)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    msspeaks Forum Index -> MOVIES
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
agate
Site Admin


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 5694
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:01 am    Post subject: THE STAIRCASE (2004) Reply with quote

THE STAIRCASE (2004)

The original title of this apparently was Les Soupçons [The Suspicions]–perhaps a better choice.

I haven’t read any of the best-selling fiction by Michael Peterson, the man on trial for murder in this documentary, and after more than 6 hours of being in his company by watching this film, I still couldn’t say whether he could have killed his wife and possibly another woman years before.

I would like to know how many people die in falls on stairs that are similar to the unusual stairs where Kathleen Peterson was claimed to have died. I would like to know how likely a person is to die during a fall down a flight of unsafe stairs. I just can’t recall hearing about very many cases where someone was killed by falling downstairs, but then I haven’t been keeping a tally.

There is so much here that I’d need to know if I had to decide on this man’s guilt or innocence. If the jury was given what the movie viewer is given, I don’t see how any juror was able to decide on a guilty verdict, and yet they did.

It is made to seem that homophobia may have played a part in this trial. When it came out that Peterson is a bisexual and had routinely solicited sexual encounters with strangers on the Internet, unbeknownst to his family, the prosecuting attorney had a field day.

But is it homophobia we are seeing there, or is she finding fault with the deception involved, the sleazy, impersonal nature of the encounters? She seems to be suggesting that this poses a problem, particularly in view of the scrubbed and wholesome family life that has been presented by the defense.

Peterson has been in the military (Marines?). He has been trained in killing. He seems to drink heavily. He carries on a seedy covert sex life, about which his wife Kathleen might have learned–and been horrified–on the night she died.

Then there is the behavior of the defense team and the family throughout the long proceedings. The macabre jokes seemed wrong to me. I can’t say how people normally behave or if there could be a “normal” in such an abnormal situation. But then I watched the “extras” for the movie, one of which was entitled “How could they stay in that house?” and pointed out that the family lived on in the house where the death occurred–having to preserve the death scene intact all the while, or at least that was my impression. My reaction was similar–that they would have wanted to move away from the horrible reality of it. But it was pointed out that it’s a huge house, and so maybe they could shut themselves off from parts of it and pretend that the death scene wasn't there. And maybe they had an interest in remaining there to protect the integrity of the evidence--though someone could have been hired to housesit.

In any case, the kids involved are perhaps the best recommendation Mike Peterson had, as they seem level-headed enough, and the two Ratliff girls especially seem genuine and unassuming, almost self-effacing. It is hard to believe that a murderer would have raised five seemingly decent children, but again there aren’t enough facts. How involved was he in the upbringing of the children? And only a few facts about the children are presented.

But to have successfully amalgamated several families in the way Mike and Kathleen Peterson did is an achievement.

The prosecuting attorney is easy to ridicule, with her changing hairdos and her heavy makeup and her somewhat homophobic attitudes, but she is spot on about the blowpoke when she says emphatically that the prosecution never claimed that a blowpoke was the murder weapon. What they claimed was that something like the blowpoke was the murder weapon.

Having never seen a blowpoke (I had to look it up), I have no idea how much it weighs or whether it could inflict the kind of head wounds Kathleen Peterson suffered. The blowpoke that is found is lacking a metal piece on the end while other blowpokes in the batch that a relative had given to
family members years ago have the metal piece. If this is relevant, nothing further is said about it. Could the metal piece have inflicted the blows and been intentionally lost?

Why was no attention given to finding other possible murder weapons? Why the fixation on the blowpoke? This isn’t clear either.

There are two medical experts, one testifying that Kathleen’s injuries were consistent with a fall downstairs, the other testifying that they’re consistent with foul play. If a murder conviction has to rest on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, it looks as if there is still reasonable doubt in this case, and Peterson shouldn’t have been found guilty (although I think he very well might be).

The prosecuting attorney sounds downright stupid when she keeps insisting that Peterson is “a fictional [sic] writer,” implying that writing stories makes him guilty of heinous crimes. At the very least, she seems to suggest, one couldn’t believe a word he said.

The film is beautifully done though it must have been a difficult task. Clarifying its complexities for a viewing audience could not have been easy. What to leave in, what to omit? The film-makers probably did as well as anyone could have done with this material.
_________________
MS diagnosed 1980.

Avonex 2002-2005. Copaxone 2007-2010.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    msspeaks Forum Index -> MOVIES All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Create your own free forum now!
Terms of Service Purchase Ad Removal Forum Archive Report Abuse